8 Jul
2009
8 Jul
'09
4:14 p.m.
I just picked up my first 5150. It's a later 1983 model, in pretty
stellar condition, with a single top/bottom half-height 5 1/4"
occupying the left full-height bay.
I'd love to add a Winchester disk, but I understand that the early PCs
did not have a power supply capable of driving a Winchester. How can
I tell which power supply I have? My Google-fu has failed me on this
query. Unfortunately it's not sitting in front of me at the moment, so
I can't read any part numbers off of it; I'll have a look later
tonight, but I recall it being a 65W power supply.
-Seth
8 Jul
8 Jul
4:18 p.m.
On Jul 8, 2009, at 4:14 PM, Seth Morabito wrote:
I just picked up my first 5150. It's a later 1983
model, in pretty
stellar condition, with a single top/bottom half-height 5 1/4"
occupying the left full-height bay.
I'd love to add a Winchester disk, but I understand that the early PCs
did not have a power supply capable of driving a Winchester. How can
I tell which power supply I have? My Google-fu has failed me on this
query. Unfortunately it's not sitting in front of me at the moment, so
I can't read any part numbers off of it; I'll have a look later
tonight, but I recall it being a 65W power supply.
I'm pretty sure the 65W PS was the original one that was too small
to support a hard drive.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
4:31 p.m.
On 8 Jul 2009 at 16:18, Dave McGuire wrote:
> I'd love to add a Winchester disk, but I
understand that the early
> PCs did not have a power supply capable of driving a Winchester.
> How can I tell which power supply I have? My Google-fu has failed me
> on this query. Unfortunately it's not sitting in front of me at the
> moment, so I can't read any part numbers off of it; I'll have a look
> later tonight, but I recall it being a 65W power supply.
Over on the Vintage Computer Forum, there's an 8-bit IDE adapter
project going. Stick an IDE-CF adapter on and you've got a very low
power "hard disk" that would certainly run with the original PSU.
--Chuck
4:39 p.m.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Chuck Guzis<cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
Over on the Vintage Computer Forum, there's an
8-bit IDE adapter
project going. ?Stick an IDE-CF adapter on and you've got a very low
power "hard disk" that would certainly run with the original PSU.
I was just thinking yesterday about whipping up a proto board to do
just that! But if someone else can save me the work, I'm delighted.
Thanks for pointing this out, I'll have a look!
-Seth
4:33 p.m.
On 7/8/09, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 4:14 PM, Seth Morabito wrote:
> I just picked up my first 5150.
Congrats.
> I'd love to add a Winchester disk, but I
understand that the early PCs
> did not have a power supply capable of driving a Winchester.
Specifically, they didn't have the capability of powering contemporary
hard drives.
I'm pretty sure the 65W PS was the original one
that was too small to
support a hard drive.
Yep. That's the one.
My memory is that the power budget is strained with a full boat of
cards and a pair of floppies. You could power your hard drive from an
external power supply, but it might be tidier to install a PSU from an
XT and set your 65W PSU on the shelf to reinstall if you ever want to
run the original configuration.
Alternately, you might be able to get away with a minimal amount of
cards and a 3.5" MFM drive, but I would never try it without measuring
the draw of your present configuration and adding in the draw of the
drive _and_ adding some extra capacity for startup surges, etc.
If it were my box, I'd just drop an XT PSU in there and shelve the
original PSU for later.
-ethan
4:46 p.m.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Ethan Dicks<ethan.dicks at gmail.com> wrote:
If it were my box, I'd just drop an XT PSU in
there and shelve the
original PSU for later.
I'll keep my eye out for an XT PSU.
It's currently powering four slots: Hayes modem, Hercules graphics,
IBM floppy controller, and 8-bit ethernet. I can easily lose the modem
and the ethernet (unless I want to relive my college days of DOS 3.3
packet drivers - which, come to think of it, may not even enough room
with only 64K of RAM, so nevermind)
-Seth
5:14 p.m.
Seth Morabito wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Ethan
Dicks<ethan.dicks at gmail.com> wrote:
It's currently powering four slots: Hayes modem, Hercules graphics,
IBM floppy controller, and 8-bit ethernet. I can easily lose the modem
and the ethernet (unless I want to relive my college days of DOS 3.3
packet drivers - which, come to think of it, may not even enough room
with only 64K of RAM, so nevermind)
Not sure of this but will 64K be enough RAM to work with a hard drive ?
I believe Dos 2.x was the first that supported hard drives, dunno what
it's minimum RAM requirement is tho.
As an aside I once worked out (by playing about with the total ram BIOS
variable, and soft rebooting) that Dos 1.0 would boot to a prompt in 12K
of RAM, but you could not load anything else. In 16K you could load
things like the editor, but IIRC 16K was the minimum config for the
original 5150.
Cheers,
Phill.
--
Phill Harvey-Smith, Programmer, Hardware hacker, and general eccentric !
"You can twist perceptions, but reality won't budge" -- Rush.
5:38 p.m.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Phill
Harvey-Smith<afra at aurigae.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Seth Morabito wrote:
I know it boots DOS 2.11, so maybe this is enough.
I'm keeping an eye out for a memory expansion card as well. 256K
should be enough for anyone, right? :-)
-Seth
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Ethan Dicks<ethan.dicks at gmail.com> wrote:
It's currently powering four slots: Hayes modem, Hercules graphics,
IBM floppy controller, and 8-bit ethernet. I can easily lose the modem
and the ethernet (unless I want to relive my college days of DOS 3.3
packet drivers - which, come to think of it, may not even enough room
with only 64K of RAM, so nevermind)
Not sure of this but will 64K be enough RAM to work with a hard drive ? I
believe Dos 2.x was the first that supported hard drives, dunno what it's
minimum RAM requirement is tho.
5:50 p.m.
Seth Morabito wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Phill
Harvey-Smith<afra at aurigae.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Though that's with a floppy only system, a hard disk will of course need
some memory for buffers, house keeping etc.
Not sure of this but will 64K be enough RAM to
work with a hard drive ? I
believe Dos 2.x was the first that supported hard drives, dunno what it's
minimum RAM requirement is tho.
I know it boots DOS 2.11, so maybe this is enough. I'm keeping an eye out for a memory expansion card
as well. 256K
should be enough for anyone, right? :-)
640K acording to Mr Gates.....
Actually I'm supprised no one has made an XT type card that has a single
1M SIMM mounted on it to expand the memory to 640K, should be pretty
easy to do as most simms will self refresh if you reverse the order of
RAS and CAS once in a while. I know this is at least in theory possible,
as I have hooked a 1M simm up to a Dragon 32 (UK CoCo clone) in this way.
Cheers.
Phill.
--
Phill Harvey-Smith, Programmer, Hardware hacker, and general eccentric !
"You can twist perceptions, but reality won't budge" -- Rush.
7:36 p.m.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Phill
Harvey-Smith<afra at aurigae.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Actually I'm supprised no one has made an XT type
card that has a single 1M
SIMM mounted on it to expand the memory to 640K, should be pretty easy to do
as most simms will self refresh if you reverse the order of RAS and CAS once
in a while. I know this is at least in theory possible, as I have hooked a
1M simm up to a Dragon 32 (UK CoCo clone) in this way.
Now that you mention it, I'm surprised too. I'll do some research to
see if anyone else has done one. If not, it could be a fun and quick
project.
Of course, these days it's getting hard to find 1M SIMMs, too...
-Seth
8:05 p.m.
On 8 Jul 2009 at 16:36, Seth Morabito wrote:
Now that you mention it, I'm surprised too.
I'll do some research to
see if anyone else has done one. If not, it could be a fun and quick
project.
Of course, these days it's getting hard to find 1M SIMMs, too...
You could fill up the base RAM area with one 512Kx8 and one 128Kx8
SRAM. Under $10 for the big part and around $5 for the small one.
Fully static; no clocks and no worrying about refresh or finding the
correct socket. 55-70 nS access time.
--Chuck
7:34 p.m.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Seth Morabito<sethm at loomcom.com> wrote:
I'm keeping an eye out for a memory expansion card
as well. 256K
should be enough for anyone, right? :-)
Oh, I take that back. I am a dimwit. It's got a Rev. 3 motherboard, on
which is printed "64KB-256KB", and all the DRAM banks are filled, so I
assume it's a 256KB system, NOT a 64KB system.
Unlike the 5160, the POST doesn't tell me how much RAM it has when it
turns on, and I just incorrectly assumed it was 64KB.
Live and learn!
-Seth
8:01 p.m.
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Seth Morabito wrote:
Oh, I take that back. I am a dimwit. It's got a
Rev. 3 motherboard, on
which is printed "64KB-256KB", and all the DRAM banks are filled, so I
assume it's a 256KB system, NOT a 64KB system.
That motherboard can be trivially modified to support 2 rows of 256K, plus
2 rows of 64K (one of which is already soldered in.
That will give you 640K, which is plenty for ANYBODY.
Unlike the 5160, the POST doesn't tell me how much
RAM it has when it
turns on, and I just incorrectly assumed it was 64KB.
try CHKDSK
You can run Windoze 3.00, but NOT 3.10 or newer.
PC-DOS 2.1x is a good choice for it, although some will tell you to run
5.00 or DR-DOS, etc.
8:21 p.m.
2009/7/9 Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com>:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Seth Morabito wrote:
Depends what you want to do.
If you want to play around with DOS apps of the period, MS-DOS 3.3 is
the best bet. Good range of basic functionality in a reasonably small
memory footprint. If you want to use the DOS prompt, play with
different media, stuff like that, DR-DOS 5 offers more functionality -
a better editor, ability to move files, rename directories, stuff like
that - but it's bigger. A fair bit bigger. On a 386, it's effectively
smaller as you can move bits out of base memory, but not on an 8086.
Any version after DR-DOS 5 -- DR-DOS 6 or 7, MS-DOS 5, 6, 6.2, PC DOS
6 or 7 or 2000 - will be bigger still; all the extra functionality
won't work on an 8086.
Digital Research's DOS+ will run and is an interesting curiosity. Very
elderly versions of Concurrent DOS will, too. And Compaq DOS 3.31 will
enable you to have big (>32MB) disk partitions in a way that's
compatible with any later OS, without any extensions or drivers or
patches.
But I'd probably go with MS-DOS 3.3, and some vintage apps like
WordStar 4, Lotus 1-2-3 2, SideKick and stuff like that, for a feel of
early-1980s PC computing. It wasn't pretty. :?)
DESQview would run, and probably so would GEM - even FreeGEM from
www.deltasoft.com - if you fancy multitasking or a GUI. But not both
at once...
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
Oh, I take that back. I am a dimwit. It's got
a Rev. 3 motherboard, on
which is printed "64KB-256KB", and all the DRAM banks are filled, so I
assume it's a 256KB system, NOT a 64KB system.
That motherboard can be trivially modified to support 2 rows of 256K, plus
2 rows of 64K (one of which is already soldered in.
That will give you 640K, which is plenty for ANYBODY.
Unlike the 5160, the POST doesn't tell me how
much RAM it has when it
turns on, and I just incorrectly assumed it was 64KB.
try CHKDSK
You can run Windoze 3.00, but NOT 3.10 or newer.
PC-DOS 2.1x is a good choice for it, although some will tell you to run
5.00 or DR-DOS, etc. 
9:29 a.m.
Liam Proven wrote:
DESQview would run, and probably so would GEM - even
FreeGEM from
www.deltasoft.com - if you fancy multitasking or a GUI. But not both
at once...
PASCAL too would run ... I saw the link a few months back.
I got the Sams 8088 assembler lang programing book, just the Cat's meyow
for this.
Ben.
8:51 p.m.
2009/7/8 Ben <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca>:
Liam Proven wrote:
Several forms, yes - Borland's early versions of TurboPascal, the
original UCDS p-System, and so on.
Basically, almost any DOS app from up to 1988-1989 or so. When Windows
3 came along and 386s started to get commonplace, some of the high-end
DOS apps started gaining 386-specific features, or wouldn't run in a
DOS config without 600K or so of conventional memory and some expanded
or extended RAM too. That's damned near impossible on an 8086 machine.
For instance, Lotus 1-2-3 r3 won't run: it needs a 286 and 1MB of RAM.
Even Windows 3.0 in VGA mode won't work - the VGA driver uses 80286
instructions. An NEC V30 chip is a socket-compatible replacement that
implements the real-mode 286 instructions, so it will run Win3 in VGA
- but that's getting a long way from a standard IBM PC.
But most DOS apps that predate Windows 3.0 will work, including
umpteen programming languages from QuickBASIC to Turbo Prolog.
Just not very fast, that's all. :?)
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
DESQview would run, and probably so would GEM - even FreeGEM from
www.deltasoft.com - if you fancy multitasking or a GUI. But not both
at once...
PASCAL too would run ... I saw the link a few months back.
I got the Sams 8088 assembler lang programing book, just the Cat's meyow for
this.
Ben.
11:40 p.m.
On 7/8/09, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
If you want to play around with DOS apps of the
period, MS-DOS 3.3 is
the best bet.
Yes. Especially if you are used to DOS 5 or DOS 6, DOS 3.3 won't feel
too "odd", but takes up less memory than the newer versions. Even a
few K makes a huge difference, in case you've forgotten how painful it
was.
But I'd probably go with MS-DOS 3.3, and some
vintage apps like
WordStar 4, Lotus 1-2-3 2, SideKick and stuff like that, for a feel of
early-1980s PC computing. It wasn't pretty. :?)
I agree it wasn't pretty. Fortunately for me, I "missed out" when
that stuff was current. I was working on DEC computers at work,
Commodore computers at home, and classic Macs at my mother's small
business when "the whole business world" was using DOS. I didn't get
a DOS box at home until about 1991. Except for one project in 1988
(application development for a motor platform for a remote
microscope), I didn't really use DOS at work on a daily basis until
1995 (the same year I first got paid to set up a Linux box,
coincidentally), and even then, I had my Amiga on same desk for "real"
work.
What else was popular back then... Procomm for dialup terminal
emulation (if you weren't using Kermit), Turbo Pascal for app
development (unless you were already a dyed-in-the-wool C programmer,
and there were options for that), games of course, and before Word or
WordPerfect or even WordStar, there was WordVision by Bruce and James
software (my first employer). I have a copy of it downstairs - it
comes on a PC-DOS 1.0 install floppy w/copy protection, and the box
says "PC-DOS 1.0 or higher required, 256K of RAM required, floppy
drive required". It uses timing loops, so it really only runs right
at 4.77MHz (but I think someone came up with a timing loop constant
patch program when machines over 8MHz started coming along). In 1982,
it was really great; not so much so by 1984 when the company folded.
Glad I got a copy of the product to show off what things used to be
like before hard disks were common as mud.
-ethan
9 Jul
9 Jul
12:08 a.m.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Ethan Dicks<ethan.dicks at gmail.com> wrote:
Yes. ?Especially if you are used to DOS 5 or DOS 6,
DOS 3.3 won't feel
too "odd", but takes up less memory than the newer versions.
I had an original 5150. If I remember correctly, mine came with 2.1.
(this was the 8th grade for me) Then when I was at school, i snuck
into the nurse's office and sat down at one of two XTs they had. (Not
sure why they were in the nurse's office). I was in awe over the
hard drive, which was the first I had ever seen. I was also excited
about finding a new version of DOS (3.3) since debug had an assembler!
Debug in 2.1 would only unassemble. I managed to make a bootable 3.3
floppy that worked on my home machine. Now you could type in opcodes
and it would translate them into bytes. Up to that point, I had been
unassembling random memory looking for the instruction that I wanted,
then writing down the bytes, and reverse-engineering the address
offset parts of the machine language instructions, then typing the
bytes back in to write programs. I managed to write some fairly
rudimentary programs by using just the assembler in debug.
The programs were silly and mostly useless, but it was good experience
though. Years later at university, I had an assembly language class.
I was delighted when the professor switched it from system/370 to
intel assembly. I slept through the class and got an A.
And to think that my parents were very hesitant to buy a computer for
me, convinced that I would only use it to play games. Later, I worked
for a year and a half making minimum wage to save money to buy an
amiga. They wouldn't spend a dime to help me with that computer
either, since everyone knew it was a game machine. I played a lot of
games on it, but it also taught me 68000 assembly and this useless
skill called C.
brian
12:33 a.m.
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Brian Lanning wrote:
about finding a new version of DOS (3.3) since debug
had an assembler!
Debug in 2.1 would only unassemble. I managed to make a bootable 3.3
Strange.
I've used the DEBUG assembly capability in every version of PC-DOS, and
most versions of MS-DOS.
On some OEM versions of MS-DOS, MASM was included; on some, including
PC-DOS, MASM was a separate product.
Was the Seattle Computer Products assembler ever available commercially?
It was nice to not have the almost COBOL level of overhead when writing
very tiny programs.
12:40 a.m.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Fred Cisin<cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Brian Lanning wrote:
It could have easily been an older version of DOS I was using. I
don't remember for sure. But I know for sure assembling didn't work.
Unassembling worked just fine though. I know I didn't have masm
either.
about finding a new version of DOS (3.3) since
debug had an assembler!
?Debug in 2.1 would only unassemble. ?I managed to make a bootable 3.3
Strange.
I've used the DEBUG assembly capability in every version of PC-DOS, and
most versions of MS-DOS.
On some OEM versions of MS-DOS, MASM was included; on some, including
PC-DOS, MASM was a separate product.
1:29 a.m.
On 8 Jul 2009 at 21:33, Fred Cisin wrote:
Strange.
I've used the DEBUG assembly capability in every version of PC-DOS,
and most versions of MS-DOS.
My copy of the PC-DOS 1.1 manual here on the shelf shows the first
command for DEBUG to be "C" for compare. There is no "A" command
listed.
If you'd like I can crank it up and see if it's there--but you'd
think they'd have documented it. Honestly, I don't remember much
from the DOS 1 days, other than how much better 2.0 was
in
comparison. I know that DEBUG had an assemble command in 2.0, but it
may have crept into DOS in one of the "intermediate" OEM versions,
such as 1.25.
--Chuck
1:09 a.m.
On 8 Jul 2009 at 23:40, Ethan Dicks wrote:
What else was popular back then... Procomm for dialup
terminal
emulation (if you weren't using Kermit), Turbo Pascal for app
development (unless you were already a dyed-in-the-wool C programmer,
and there were options for that), games of course, and before Word or
WordPerfect or even WordStar, there was WordVision by Bruce and James
software (my first employer).
The first programs for the PC generally were direct ports of Z80/8080
CP/M products. WordStar (3.30?) was released for DOS in 1982 and was
basically the Z80 version run through an assembly-code translator and
patched. ISTR that you could still patch it to talk to terminals.
I never encountered WordVision. Supercalc, Multiplan, etc. were all
minimal ports of the basic CP/M product.
If you wanted to use C, you bought Lattice C from Microsoft (MS
didn't have their own C). MASM 1.0 was a frightful hideously slow
buggy affair that was offered in two separate versions--one for 64K
systems and another for systems with more memory. I loathed MASM 1.0-
-it was all too possible to generate the wrong code; something that
should never happen with an assembler. IMOHO, Microsoft didn't start
getting MASM right until about 4.0; 5.0 was a marked improvement and
6.0 finally represented something full-featured.
There were few secrets back then--the DOS user's manual had all of
the system calls documented as well as disk layout.
By DOS 2.0, TSRs had begun proliferating. Indeed, one of the
problems was collision between two TSRs that didn't agree on how to
do things. Think of it as an early version of DLL Hell. You had
popup editors, calculators, comms programs--all sorts of things. I
offered a popup diskette formatter that operated in the background
(yes, it was possible to multitask under DOS).
I still have the demo diskette for Word 1.0 that was packed in one of
the PC rags (PC World?).
Compared to the Z80 CP/M world, the early PC world wasn't bad. After
hard disks came on the scene and PCs had more memory options, it got
markedly better.
Shareware was the darling of the PC world--at last, one could write a
program with a large audience. Bottonware was a huge success story.
A lot of the darling programs are scarcely known now. Harvard
Presentation Graphics, Micrographx Deisgner, Corel Draw, numerous
accounting packages, games...
You might want to poke around in the SIMTEL archives to see what
there is to see.
Cheers,
Chuck
14 Jul
14 Jul
8:59 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
I loathed MASM 1.0-
-it was all too possible to generate the wrong code; something that
should never happen with an assembler.
How on earth is that possible? I can imagine an assembler generating
non-optimal code, but non-FUNCTIONAL code?
A lot of the darling programs are scarcely known now.
Harvard
Presentation Graphics, Micrographx Deisgner, Corel Draw, numerous
accounting packages, games...
The games are definitely well-known, but I agree with you about some of
the applications. I remember a hypertext program called -- I think --
Instant Recall. Every single word you typed into "card" was indexed, so
anything could link to anything. Could be memory-resident too.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
11:40 p.m.
> I loathed MASM 1.0-
> -it was all too possible to generate the wrong code; something that
> should never happen with an assembler.
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Jim Leonard wrote:
How on earth is that possible? I can imagine an
assembler generating
non-optimal code, but non-FUNCTIONAL code?
Never under-estimate what MICROS~1 is capable of doing!
V5.0 was the first one where the papers that came with it could even be
CALLED documentation.
15 Jul
15 Jul
12:25 a.m.
On 14 Jul 2009 at 19:59, Jim Leonard wrote:
How on earth is that possible? I can imagine an
assembler generating
non-optimal code, but non-FUNCTIONAL code?
It happened. Reiviews of MASM 1.0 were scathing, ISTR. But by far,
the most fun could be had when MASM simply turned toes up and errored
out. I can understand why many used TASM and the like.
--Chuck
10:51 a.m.
>> I loathed MASM 1.0-
>> -it was all too possible to generate the wrong code; something that
>> should never happen with an assembler.
> How on earth is that possible? I can imagine an
assembler generating
> non-optimal code, but non-FUNCTIONAL code?
Never under-estimate what MICROS~1 is capable of doing!
V5.0 was the first one where the papers that came with
it could even be
CALLED documentation.
Just curious - I don't know if I ever saw a Microsoft branded
version of MASM 1.0 - I have the complete IBM "Macro Assembler
by Microsoft" package, which is packaged in a pink PC format
binder with about an inch thickness of paper - I've saw a lot
of products in that era with much worse documentation.
The manual states that it's "First Edition (December 1981)
and the MASM executable spits out:
-----------------------------------------
The IBM Personal Computer MACRO Assembler
Version 1.00 (C)Copyright IBM Corp 1981
-----------------------------------------
Is this essentially the same assembler that is being discussed?
There are two assemblers in the package, ASM which is without
macros and requires 64k and MASM which does support macros and
requires 96k - someone scoffed at this, but it seems reasonable
to provide a limited version for a very small memory footprint
system (many vendors did this in the days of limited memory).
It does state that if you have 96k you can run either assembler,
so I don't think it has anything to do with needing to architect
if differently for different amounts of memory.
We used this package a lot in some early PC product development,
and I do recall that it was slow and had a number of quirks, but
we did produce a lot of working code with it. I also recall that
when we upgraded to MASM 4 is was *much* better (in fact I still
have it installed and use it from time to time).
--
dave09 (at) Dave Dunfield
dunfield (dot) Firmware development services & tools: www.dunfield.com
com Collector of vintage computing equipment:
http://www.classiccmp.org/dunfield/index.html
11:45 a.m.
On 15 Jul 2009 at 9:51, Dave Dunfield wrote:
Just curious - I don't know if I ever saw a
Microsoft branded
version of MASM 1.0 - I have the complete IBM "Macro Assembler
by Microsoft" package, which is packaged in a pink PC format
binder with about an inch thickness of paper - I've saw a lot
of products in that era with much worse documentation.
That's the one I'm talking about. I'm not sure if MS ever sold the
1.0 version as a retail product.
There are two assemblers in the package, ASM which is
without
macros and requires 64k and MASM which does support macros and
requires 96k - someone scoffed at this, but it seems reasonable
to provide a limited version for a very small memory footprint
system (many vendors did this in the days of limited memory).
It does state that if you have 96k you can run either assembler,
so I don't think it has anything to do with needing to architect
if differently for different amounts of memory.
Correct. ASM was useful if you had the original fully-populated 64K
5150. I found that so limiting, I purchased a Quadram Quadboard
shortly thereafter.
We used this package a lot in some early PC product
development,
and I do recall that it was slow and had a number of quirks, but
we did produce a lot of working code with it. I also recall that
when we upgraded to MASM 4 is was *much* better (in fact I still
have it installed and use it from time to time).
What's remarkable is that MASM 2.x and 3.x versions can be hard to
find nowadays. I think 1.0 scared the dickens out of the market for
a time. I recall that MS/IBM released a corrective service pack
with something over 100 bug fixes.
It's interesting that Microsoft's Z80 assembler, M80 was fairly
robust--I used it extensively, even later under emulation, even
though I also had the Avocet Z80 cross-assembler.
Now, if someone would bring the microcontroller assemblers (PIC, AVR)
up to the level of MASM 6.x (or even the F level S/360 Assembler, or
CDC COMPASS) in terms of flexibility, I could die happy. What's
insane is that the current PIC assembler (MPASMWIN) executable is
over 8 MB. I know--welcome to the 21st century--nobody writes
assembly anymore.
--Chuck
4:12 p.m.
> Just curious - I don't know if I ever saw a
Microsoft branded
> version of MASM 1.0 - I have the complete IBM "Macro Assembler
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Chuck Guzis wrote:
That's the one I'm talking about. I'm not
sure if MS ever sold the
1.0 version as a retail product.
I don't think so, but they did provide MASM to at least some MS-DOS
bundling computer companies. Some Morrow, Toshiba, etc. releases
(around MS-DOS 2.00?) had Masm, and even ASM as files on the MS-DOS system
disk.
over 8 MB. I know--welcome to the 21st century--nobody
writes
assembly anymore.
Were we always NOBODIES, and did we earn that distinction?
4:25 p.m.
On 7/15/09, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
"Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."
-- Yogi Berra (on his opinion of Rugerio's, a popular St. Louis
restaurant where he had once worked as headwaiter.)
over 8 MB. I
know--welcome to the 21st century--nobody writes
assembly anymore.
Were we always NOBODIES, and did we earn that distinction?
4:31 p.m.
On Jul 15, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote:
"Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."
-- Yogi Berra (on his opinion of Rugerio's, a popular St. Louis
restaurant where he had once worked as headwaiter.)
soda -> monitor
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
over 8 MB. I know--welcome to the 21st century--nobody
writes
assembly anymore.
Were we always NOBODIES, and did we earn that distinction?
4:22 p.m.
On Jul 15, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Now, if someone would bring the microcontroller
assemblers (PIC, AVR)
up to the level of MASM 6.x (or even the F level S/360 Assembler, or
CDC COMPASS) in terms of flexibility, I could die happy.
I wonder how easily retargetable those assemblers are.. 8-)
What's
insane is that the current PIC assembler (MPASMWIN) executable is
over 8 MB.
Welcome to the wonderful world of Windows software. ;)
I know--welcome to the 21st century--nobody writes
assembly anymore.
Urr? Wow, if THAT were actually true..
-Dave
4:32 p.m.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Dave McGuire<mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Right now I'm pondering if I need to jump into assembly to optimize
this system call... writing PPC assembly isn't particularly painful or
anything, but it's no C ;)
John
--
"I've tried programming Ruby on Rails, following TechCrunch in my RSS
reader, and drinking absinthe. It doesn't work. I'm going back to C,
Hunter S. Thompson, and cheap whiskey." -- Ted Dziuba
Now, if someone would bring the microcontroller assemblers (PIC, AVR)
up to the level of MASM 6.x (or even the F level S/360 Assembler, or
CDC COMPASS) in terms of flexibility, I could die happy.
?I wonder how easily retargetable those assemblers are.. ?8-)
?What's
insane is that the current PIC assembler (MPASMWIN) executable is
over 8 MB.
?Welcome to the wonderful world of Windows software. ;)
I know--welcome to the 21st century--nobody
writes
assembly anymore.
?Urr? ?Wow, if THAT were actually true..
? ? ? ? -Dave
4:38 p.m.
On 15 Jul 2009 at 16:22, Dave McGuire wrote:
I wonder how easily retargetable those assemblers
are.. 8-)
I *have* given some thought to retargeting MASM 6. It should be
possible, but I'm going to have to dig into the .HEX file format for
the MCUs to see what's what.
Welcome to the wonderful world of Windows software.
;)
Windows programs do seem to carry around a whole bunch of excess
baggage, don't they? I don't know if Steve Gibson still does it, but
at one time he was an advocate of programming Windows apps in
assembly.
--Chuck
5:33 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Windows programs do seem to carry around a whole bunch
of excess
baggage, don't they? I don't know if Steve Gibson still does it, but
at one time he was an advocate of programming Windows apps in
assembly.
I don't know if Steve Gibson does any more, but there are still people
who program in assembly language for Windows:
<http://masm32.com/>
Once you get past the initial hurdles, Windows is actually a
surprisingly good platform for assembly language.
--
Matthew Reed
http://www.trs-80.org
mkr at trs-80.org
12:51 p.m.
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Dave Dunfield wrote:
Just curious - I don't know if I ever saw a
Microsoft branded
version of MASM 1.0 - I have the complete IBM "Macro Assembler
by Microsoft" package, which is packaged in a pink PC format
binder with about an inch thickness of paper - I've saw a lot
of products in that era with much worse documentation.
Ahh, the days of mimeograph, or even ditto'd pages with a disk in a
zip-lock bag!
Although IBM sold it as a separate product, several OEMs just bundled it
with MS-DOS.
The manual states that it's "First Edition
(December 1981)
and the MASM executable spits out:
-----------------------------------------
The IBM Personal Computer MACRO Assembler
Version 1.00 (C)Copyright IBM Corp 1981
-----------------------------------------
Is this essentially the same assembler that is being discussed?
Yes
There are two assemblers in the package, ASM which is
without
macros and requires 64k and MASM which does support macros and
requires 96k - someone scoffed at this, but it seems reasonable
to provide a limited version for a very small memory footprint
system (many vendors did this in the days of limited memory).
It does state that if you have 96k you can run either assembler,
so I don't think it has anything to do with needing to architect
if differently for different amounts of memory.
ASM also had more terse error messages than MASM. No big deal with
experience, but frustrating for students.
We used this package a lot in some early PC product
development,
and I do recall that it was slow and had a number of quirks, but
One real fun item was the avalanche of "Phase Errors" whenever you had a
type mismatch with a forward reference.
we did produce a lot of working code with it. I also
recall that
when we upgraded to MASM 4 is was *much* better (in fact I still
have it installed and use it from time to time).
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
8 Jul
8 Jul
5:41 p.m.
Ethan Dicks wrote:
My memory is that the power budget is strained with a
full boat of
cards and a pair of floppies.
I remember trying to power one (this a 5.25" FH, however) from a 5150 PSU, and
it just wasn't happening, even with a cut-down machine. As you say, a 3.5"
drive *might* do better.
I've got a feeling the were other issues too - either with the 5150 BIOS and
hard disk compatibility, or purely with the amount of RAM available to run a
hard-disk-aware OS.
4:21 p.m.
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Seth Morabito wrote:
I'd love to add a Winchester disk, but I
understand that the early PCs
did not have a power supply capable of driving a Winchester. How can
I tell which power supply I have? My Google-fu has failed me on this
query. Unfortunately it's not sitting in front of me at the moment, so
I can't read any part numbers off of it; I'll have a look later
tonight, but I recall it being a 65W power supply.
XT doubled the power supply output. And full height 5.25" hard drives
needed it. A small relatively modern drive might be able to squeak by
with the 65 W supply.
9 Jul
9 Jul
9:24 p.m.
Fred Cisin wrote:
XT doubled the power supply output. And full height
5.25" hard drives
needed it. A small relatively modern drive might be able to squeak by
with the 65 W supply.
I know this is going to sound sacreligious, but can any 1990s-era power
supply (ie. 200w) be used too? I ask because I have two 5150s without
working power supplies and figured I could dummy up one or both of them
as testing/workhorse machines.
9:40 p.m.
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009, Jim Leonard wrote:
I know this is going to sound sacreligious, but can
any 1990s-era power
supply (ie. 200w) be used too? I ask because I have two 5150s without
working power supplies and figured I could dummy up one or both of them
as testing/workhorse machines.
Yes! Well, at least EARLY 90s (135W, 150W, . . .)
Until the advent of the ATX boards, PS/2, tower cases, etc., the PC power
supplies were pretty much interchangeable.
Some AT power supplies are too tall for the 5150 case.
Tower case power supplies may need different mounting holes?
Some later power supplies have extra connections for CPU fan, etc.
The power supply may not be testable without a load. I use a car
headlight bulb.
10 p.m.
On 9 Jul 2009 at 20:24, Jim Leonard wrote:
I know this is going to sound sacreligious, but can
any 1990s-era
power supply (ie. 200w) be used too? I ask because I have two 5150s
without working power supplies and figured I could dummy up one or
both of them as testing/workhorse machines.
By and large, yes, for the non-ATX supplies. To keep the "authentic"
look you may want to repackage the innards in the old PSU box. The
PCB of the newer supply will almostl inevitably be smaller. The 80's
PSUs generally had huge toroids and heatsinks; by the mid 90's,
they'd figured out how to make 'em cheap.
--Chuck
10:27 p.m.
On 7/9/09, Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org> wrote:
I know this is going to sound sacreligious, but can
any 1990s-era power
supply (ie. 200w) be used too? I ask because I have two 5150s without
working power supplies and figured I could dummy up one or both of them as
testing/workhorse machines.
Electrically, sure. Mechanically, though, I don't think a modern PSU
will fit so well, and you have no place to mount the 110V power switch
that's at the end of the extension lead.
For open-topped bench work, it'll work just fine if you find a way to
address the mounting issues.
-ethan
10 Jul
10 Jul
noon
New subject: Re PC/XT/AT Power Supply Fans (was: IBM 5150 PC)
There were a lot of Taiwanese PC/XT, AT & tower power supplies with
sleeve-bearing fans that would seize up at any time after they were
shipped from the factory. If you were lucky, you would hear the fan
fail but they often died a silent death, taking the whole power supply
with them. If you can, find one with ball-bearing fans or replace the
sleeve bearing fan. Personally, I like the US Toyo fans. I have a
whole bunch that replaced sleeve bearing fans and are still working
fine after 20+ years, some after running 24/7 for several years.
There was a some write-up about PC/XT/AT power supply fans on
CompuServe's IBMPC forum sometime in the late 80's. Interestingly,
soon after that appeared Taiwanese power supplies, all with sleeve
bearing fans, started disappearing from retail shelves and pallets of
them, new and used, started appearing at surplus stores. For a good
while you couldn't find a new power supply with a fan with sleeve
bearings on retail shelves. And then the Chicoms started making them.
==
jd
8:51 p.m.
New subject: Re PC/XT/AT Power Supply Fans (was: IBM 5150 PC)
On 10 Jul 2009 at 9:00, jd wrote:
There were a lot of Taiwanese PC/XT, AT & tower power supplies with
sleeve-bearing fans that would seize up at any time after they were
shipped from the factory. If you were lucky, you would hear the fan
fail but they often died a silent death, taking the whole power supply
with them. If you can, find one with ball-bearing fans or replace the
sleeve bearing fan. Personally, I like the US Toyo fans. I have a
whole bunch that replaced sleeve bearing fans and are still working
fine after 20+ years, some after running 24/7 for several years.
If I had to have a quick-and-dirty rule of thumb for selecting a good
fan, it'd be "pick one with a diecast frame". Alternatively,, it'd
be "pick a name brand". Your Toyo, Sanyo, Panasonic, Rotron, etc.
are all good bets. If you don't mind a slightly higher noise level,
an AC-line fan can often be had at a good quality-vs-price point on
the surplus market. Papst isn't bad either--you find them on a lot
of old commercial equipment.
--Chuck
15 Jul
15 Jul
6:25 a.m.
New subject: Re PC/XT/AT Power Supply Fans
Chuck Guzis wrote:
If I had to have a quick-and-dirty rule of thumb for
selecting a good
fan, it'd be "pick one with a diecast frame".
As far as diecast fans go, the Papst all-metal ones were (and still are)
absolute beasts. Metal frame, metal impeller, and a bloody powerful motor.
I've lost oscilloscope probe tips to them while debugging SMPSUs, and gained a
number of bruises by catching fingers in the impellers while trying to
manoeuvre scope probes into particularly inaccessible spots...
They're still making the line-powered versions (115V or 240V -- 8000A/N series
for 80mm, 3000 series is 92mm, 4000 series for 120mm) but nearly all the
<=120mm DC axials are made entirely of plastic. Not that they're significantly
worse quality; the AC units are probably all-metal for safety reasons.
If you're on a budget, Sunon fans aren't (too) bad, but tend to be a bit noisy
(audibly, not electrically). I don't think they do diecast versions though,
it's plastic or nothing.
--
Phil.
classiccmp at philpem.me.uk
http://www.philpem.me.uk/
5527
days inactive
5534
days old
43 comments
16 participants
participants (16)
-
afra＠aurigae.demon.co.uk -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
brianlanning＠gmail.com -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
classiccmp＠philpem.me.uk -
dave09＠dunfield.com -
ethan.dicks＠gmail.com -
jules.richardson99＠gmail.com -
lproven＠gmail.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
mkr＠trs-80.org -
onymouse＠garlic.com -
sethm＠loomcom.com -
slawmaster＠gmail.com -
trixter＠oldskool.org